Tom Moeller

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715c.jpg" width="353">
The University of Michigan&#39;s preliminary reading of consumer sentiment in July rose to 96.5 and added 0.5% to the 10.5% increase during June. Consensus expectations had been for a slight pullback to 95.0.
During the last ten years there has been a 74% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real PCE, although the correlation has fallen in recent years.
Consumer expectations rose 1.9% on top of the 12.9% surge during June but the reading of current economic conditions slipped 1.1%.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The mid-month survey is based on telephone interviews with 250 households nationwide on personal finances and business and buying conditions. The survey is expanded to a total of 500 interviews at month end.
The Weak Jobs Recovery: Whatever Happened To &quot;The American Jobs Machine&quot;? from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/epr/forthcoming/freeman.pdf">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>96.5</td>
<td>96.0</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
<td>89.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>112.0</td>
<td>113.2</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>97.2</td>
<td>97.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Consumer Expectations</td>
<td>86.6</td>
<td>85.0</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
<td>84.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The University of Michigan's preliminary reading of consumer sentiment in July rose to 96.5 and added 0.5% to the 10.5% increase during June. Consensus expectations had been for a slight pullback to 95.0. During the last ten years [...]

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Up A Bit Further

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715b.jpg" width="353">
The producer price index for finished goods was unexpectedly unchanged last month following the 0.6% decline in May which also was unexpected. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% rise in June. Excluding food &amp; energy prices were also surprisingly weak, falling 0.1% versus the expectation for a 0.1% rise.
Prices for core finished consumer goods fell 0.1% (+2.4% y/y) due to to a 2.0% (NSA, +1.4% y/y) decline in passenger car prices. Consumer durable goods prices overall fell 0.4% (+0.5% y/y). Showing strength, core consumer nondurable goods prices rose 0.3% (3.8% y/y) but capital goods prices fell 0.2% (+2.1% y/y).
Finished energy prices rose 2.0% (13.1% y/y) while finished food prices fell 1.1% (+0.1% y/y).
Intermediate goods prices recovered 0.1% of the prior month&#39;s sharp drop as energy prices rose 1.9% (15.0% y/y). Pricing weakness, however, was indicated by the 0.2% decline in core intermediate goods prices.
Crude prices fell another 3.3% due to the 3.1% June decline crude energy prices which has since reversed. Core crude prices added 4.3% to the May decline. Iron &amp; steel scrap prices fell 22.1% (NSA, -15.5% y/y). During the last thirty years &quot;core&quot; crude prices have been a fair indicator of industrial sector activity with a 48% correlation between the six month change in core crude prices and the change in factory sector industrial production.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>-3.3%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>17.5%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-4.3%</td>
<td>-3.6%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>26.6%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The producer price index for finished goods was unexpectedly unchanged last month following the 0.6% decline in May which also was unexpected. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% rise in June. Excluding food & energy prices [...]

Producer Prices Unexpectedly Weak

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715b.jpg" width="353">
The producer price index for finished goods was unexpectedly unchanged last month following the 0.6% decline in May which also was unexpected. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% rise in June. Excluding food &amp; energy prices were also surprisingly weak, falling 0.1% versus the expectation for a 0.1% rise.
Prices for core finished consumer goods fell 0.1% (+2.4% y/y) due to to a 2.0% (NSA, +1.4% y/y) decline in passenger car prices. Consumer durable goods prices overall fell 0.4% (+0.5% y/y). Showing strength, core consumer nondurable goods prices rose 0.3% (3.8% y/y) but capital goods prices fell 0.2% (+2.1% y/y).
Finished energy prices rose 2.0% (13.1% y/y) while finished food prices fell 1.1% (+0.1% y/y).
Intermediate goods prices recovered 0.1% of the prior month&#39;s sharp drop as energy prices rose 1.9% (15.0% y/y). Pricing weakness, however, was indicated by the 0.2% decline in core intermediate goods prices.
Crude prices fell another 3.3% due to the 3.1% June decline crude energy prices which has since reversed. Core crude prices added 4.3% to the May decline. Iron &amp; steel scrap prices fell 22.1% (NSA, -15.5% y/y). During the last thirty years &quot;core&quot; crude prices have been a fair indicator of industrial sector activity with a 48% correlation between the six month change in core crude prices and the change in factory sector industrial production.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>-3.3%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>17.5%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-4.3%</td>
<td>-3.6%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>26.6%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Consumer Sentiment Up A Bit Further 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715c.jpg" width="353">
The University of Michigan&#39;s preliminary reading of consumer sentiment in July rose to 96.5 and added 0.5% to the 10.5% increase during June. Consensus expectations had been for a slight pullback to 95.0.
During the last ten years there has been a 74% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real PCE, although the correlation has fallen in recent years.
Consumer expectations rose 1.9% on top of the 12.9% surge during June but the reading of current economic conditions slipped 1.1%.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The mid-month survey is based on telephone interviews with 250 households nationwide on personal finances and business and buying conditions. The survey is expanded to a total of 500 interviews at month end.
The Weak Jobs Recovery: Whatever Happened To &quot;The American Jobs Machine&quot;? from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/epr/forthcoming/freeman.pdf">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>96.5</td>
<td>96.0</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
<td>89.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>112.0</td>
<td>113.2</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>97.2</td>
<td>97.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Consumer Expectations</td>
<td>86.6</td>
<td>85.0</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
<td>84.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Industrial Production Recovered 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715a.jpg" width="353">
Industrial production in June jumped 0.9% and handily beat Consensus expectations for a 0.4% rise. The gain was inflated by warmer weather which raised utility output by 5.3%. Factory sector output rose 0.4% (3.8% y/y) following a downwardly revised 0.4% increase in May.
Output of computers &amp; peripheral equipment jumped 1.3% (12.5% y/y) though high tech output overall rose just 0.3% (17.0% y/y). Excluding the high tech sector factory output rose 0.5% (3.1% y/y) due to a 2.9% (6.9% y/y) rise in motor vehicle output and a 0.8% (9.2% y/y) increase in aerospace. Electrical equipment fell 0.1% (+1.0% y/y) and machinery output rose 0.2% (7.0% y/y).
Total capacity utilization rose to 80.0% and capacity grew 1.1% y/y. Factory sector utilization rose to 78.4% versus 76.5% last June and capacity rose 1.3% y/y.
 The Relationship Between Capacity Utilization and Inflation from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia can be found <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/br/Q2_05_Dotsey_Stark.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EA/@EA.HTM">Production &amp; Capacity</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Industrial Production</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Goods</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Equipment</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>9.5%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>80.0%</td>
<td>79.4%</td>
<td>77.8% (6/04)</td>
<td>78.1%</td>
<td>75.5%</td>
<td>75.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Empire State Index Up Sharply 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715d.jpg" width="353">
The July Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York&#39;s manufacturing industries doubled June&#39;s positive reading and rose to 23.91 versus 10.49. The two figures were the best back-to-back positive indications since March
The new orders component jumped to 19.15, the highest level since January and the shipments index also surged. The employment index gave back most of the prior month&#39;s gain. Like the Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions, the Empire State Business Conditions Index reflects answers to an independent survey question; it is not a weighted combination of the components.
The prices paid index fell sharply to the lowest level since December 2003.
Expectations for business conditions in six months improved to the highest level this year. Expectations for future capital spending also recovered to the highest level since April.
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in New York State conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Participants from across the state in a variety of industries respond to a questionnaire and report the change in a variety of indicators from the previous month. Respondents also state the likely direction of these same indicators six months ahead. April 2002 is the first report, although survey data date back to July 2001.
For more on the Empire State Manufacturing Survey, including methodologies and the latest report, click <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/regional_economy/empiresurvey_overview.html">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM">Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a> </th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">July &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>23.91</td>
<td>10.49</td>
<td>34.65</td>
<td>28.76</td>
<td>16.17</td>
<td>7.19</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Business Inventory Accumulation Continued Slow 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715e.jpg" width="353">
Total business inventories rose just 0.1% in May following a downwardly revised 0.2% gain in April. The three month change in inventories dropped to 3.3% (AR) versus the 12.1% peak rate of accumulation through last August. The ratio of inventories-to-sales held at the record low of 1.30.
Retail inventories rose 0.2% in May and the three month change remained low at 2.1% versus the peak of 12.4% last April. Excluding autos, however, retail inventories jumped 0.6% due to a 1.5% (7.1% y/y) surge in furniture.
Factory sector inventories were unchanged for the second month and three month growth fell to 2.7%.
Wholesale inventories rose just 0.1% and three month growth fell to 5.7%. During the last ten years there has been a 64% correlation between the y/y change in wholesale inventories and the change in imports of merchandise.
Overall business sales fell 0.1% (+6.9% y/y) following the 12.2% jump during April.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED06/@ED0601/@ED0601.HTM">Business Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Autos</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>10.4%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Israel's Consumer Prices Are Flat in June; Wholesale Prices Flat, but Up More Than 5% in Year 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> July 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715f.jpg" width="353">
Israel&#39;s monthly price data were reported today by the Central Bureau of Statistics. The June consumer price index, like that in the US, was flat. It had risen 0.2% in May. The year-on-year rate is a mere 0.3%. For wholesale prices, the index for June fell 0.4%, although prior increases have put the year-on-year rate at 5.1%.
It&#39;s interesting to see in the first graph that the consumer and wholesale indexes moved along pretty much the same trend until 2002. Since then, the consumer price index has been almost flat, while the wholesale index has continued along its former trend or even somewhat stronger. Wholesale prices are domestic prices, those charged by manufacturers selling their finished output &quot;at the factory gate&quot;. Input costs are likely a major determinant, and over the last five years there has been some correlation with oil prices, 57%, as seen in the second graph. Notably, this relationship was not so clear in prior years, but perhaps the wide swings in the oil market since 2000 have had an impact on this smaller country.
But then how can consumer prices be so stable? A quick look at the value of the shekel will give a good clue. In the third graph, it is seen to run very close to the level of the CPI. The foreign exchange rate is no trivial matter for the final price level. For the economy as a whole, imports run right at 50% of GDP. With imports so important, prices of imported products matter a great deal to pricing, so the fact that the shekel has steadied and even improved against the US dollar since mid-2002 has probably helped greatly in flattening the Israeli CPI. <img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715g.jpg" width="353"> <img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715h.jpg" width="353">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">% Changes; Yr/Yr calculated from NSA</th>
<th scope="col">June 2005</th>
<th scope="col">May 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Year/ Year</th>
December/December
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Prices: &quot;General Index&quot; (SA)</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>-1.9</td>
<td>6.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Memo:&nbsp; Exchange Rate: Shekels/US$</td>
<td>4.4849</td>
<td>4.3737</td>
<td>4.5166</td>
<td>4.4820</td>
<td>4.5483</td>
<td>4.7378</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Wholesale Prices (NSA)</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>7.6</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>6.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Fuel&nbsp; (NSA)</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>5.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Carol Stone, CBE

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714e.jpg" width="353">
Several countries reported June CPI today, and the results generally suggest that overall inflation remains quiescent. Prices in both Germany and Italy were flat after a 0.3% rise in May, and year-on-year rates four of the six reporting countries, which also include Spain, Finland, New Zealand and the US, remain at or below their pace during 2004.
Inflation is always of interest, but all the more presently because of the surge in energy prices. So we keep checking to see if there has been an acceleration in overall inflation or, if available, in the overall rate excluding energy. This latter is important for showing whether higher energy costs are being pushed through to the prices of other goods and services. In the three countries for which a total excluding energy is published, Germany, Spain and the US, this year/year rate was lower in June than it had been six months ago.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714f.jpg" width="353">
In this same time-period comparison, the 12-month percent change in June versus that for December 2004, we can discern differing trends in non-energy sectors that might help us understand how this moderate inflation is being sustained. Clothing prices are weak in almost every country, and in the places where they are not slowing, they are moving evenly with 2004&#39;s pace. Communications prices continue to decline outright, though less rapidly in some countries. Health care costs -- at least the portion covered here, the part consumers actually pay -- are generally rising at about the same rate. Food and household goods prices are mixed among the various reporting countries. Thus, apart from the clothing sector, where weakness is widespread, there is no systematic pattern of price change among the categories and the countries. This randomness is probably beneficial to the prevention of a general acceleration of prices, since it indicates considerable resistance to higher prices in disparate places in the world.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">% Changes Yr/Yr calculated from NSA</th>
<th scope="col">June 2005</th>
<th scope="col">May 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Year/ Year</th>
December/December
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany (SA)</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy (SA)</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Spain (NSA)</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>4.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy (NSA)</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>4.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy (NSA)</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finland (NSA)</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>1.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New Zealand (NSA)</td>
<td>0.9*</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>2.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Memo: US (SA)</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy (SA)</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Several countries reported June CPI today, and the results generally suggest that overall inflation remains quiescent. Prices in both Germany and Italy were flat after a 0.3% rise in May, and year-on-year rates four of the six [...]

Several Nations' CPI's Remain Moderate Despite Rapidly Rising Energy Costs

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714c.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance jumped 16,000 to 336,000 last week after a revised 9,000 increase the week earlier. Consensus expectations had been for 320,000 claims.
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 75% correlation between the level of initial claims for unemployment insurance and the monthly change in payroll employment. There has been a (negative) 65% correlation with the level of continuing claims.
The four week moving average of initial claims was about stable at 320,750 (-5.7% y/y).
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance jumped 45,000 following a revised 25,000 decline during the prior week.
The insured unemployment rate ticked up to 2.1%.
The Cost of Business Cycles for Unskilled Workers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr214.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">07/09/05</th>
<th scope="col">07/02/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>336</td>
<td>320</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>402</td>
<td>404</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,617</td>
<td>-10.7%</td>
<td>2,926</td>
<td>3,531</td>
<td>3,570</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Initial claims for unemployment insurance jumped 16,000 to 336,000 last week after a revised 9,000 increase the week earlier. Consensus expectations had been for 320,000 claims. During the last ten years there has been a (negative) [...]

Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Up Again

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714d.jpg" width="353">
US retail sales surged 1.7% last month following a decline in May that was revised slightly shallower to -0.3%. Consensus expectations had been for a 1.0% increase. Sales excluding motor vehicles rose 0.7% and followed an upwardly revised no change in May. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.5% increase.
Sales at gasoline service stations rose 1.9% despite lower gas prices. Nonauto retail sales less gasoline rose 0.6% (7.3% y/y) following a 0.1% up tick in May.
During the last ten years there has been a 54% correlation between the level of Consumer Sentiment and the y/y change in nonauto retail sales less gasoline.
Spending on discretionary items was firm. Sales at furniture &amp; electronics stores rose 0.6% (4.6% y/y) and general merchandise store sales jumped 1.2% (8.1% y/y). Apparel store sales recovered the prior month&#39;s decline and jumped 1.0% (7.6% y/y).
Building material store sales rose a modest 0.2% (9.3% y/y) following three months of firm gain.
Sales of nonstore retailers (internet and catalogue) more than reversed the prior month&#39;s drop and surged 1.7% (11.9% y/y).

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/usecon/@ED/@ED04/@ED0401/@ED0401.HTM">Retail Sales &amp; Food Services</a></td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>9.6%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

US retail sales surged 1.7% last month following a decline in May that was revised slightly shallower to -0.3%. Consensus expectations had been for a 1.0% increase. Sales excluding motor vehicles rose 0.7% and followed an upwardly [...]

U.S. Retail Sales Surged

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714b.jpg" width="353">
The CPI-U was unchanged last month following a 0.1% decline in May. The figure was below Consensus expectations for a 0.2% increase in June. During the first half of 2005 the CPI rose 3.1% at an annual rate.
Energy prices fell 0.5% led by a 1.2% drop in gasoline prices but gas prices so far in July have more than reversed recent months&#39; declines, rising 5.6% to an average $2.28 per gallon and $2.33 in the latest week. Food prices rose a modest 0.1% for the second month.
Less food &amp; energy prices rose the same 0.1% as in May and during the first six months of this year the core CPI is up 2.2% at an annual rate. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.2% increase in June.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714a.jpg" width="353">
Core goods prices fell for the second month in the last three. The 0.2% decline was led by a 1.3% (-2.8% y/y) drop in furniture &amp; bedding prices and no change (+1.5% y/y) in appliance prices. Apparel prices also fell by 0.7% (-1.5% y/y) and are down 1.0% (AR) so far this year. New motor vehicle prices were unchanged (0.7% y/y) but prices for used cars &amp; trucks rose 0.8% (7.1% y/y).
Core services prices rose a modest 0.2%. Shelter prices rose 0.2% (2.4% y/y) after two months of no change and medical care services prices rose 0.2% (4.8% y/y), the least for any month since April 2003. Public transportation prices were strong for the fourth consecutive month, up 1.2% (4.7% y/y) and school tuition costs rose 0.4% (6.6% y/y).
The chained CPI which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases fell 0.1% and less food &amp; energy chain prices fell for the second consecutive month.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer Price Index</a> </th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>-5.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80113/@E80113.HTM">Chained CPI: Total (NSA)</a> </td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The CPI-U was unchanged last month following a 0.1% decline in May. The figure was below Consensus expectations for a 0.2% increase in June. During the first half of 2005 the CPI rose 3.1% at an annual rate. Energy prices fell 0.5% [...]

Consumer Prices Rose Less Than Expected

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714b.jpg" width="353">
The CPI-U was unchanged last month following a 0.1% decline in May. The figure was below Consensus expectations for a 0.2% increase in June. During the first half of 2005 the CPI rose 3.1% at an annual rate.
Energy prices fell 0.5% led by a 1.2% drop in gasoline prices but gas prices so far in July have more than reversed recent months&#39; declines, rising 5.6% to an average $2.28 per gallon and $2.33 in the latest week. Food prices rose a modest 0.1% for the second month.
Less food &amp; energy prices rose the same 0.1% as in May and during the first six months of this year the core CPI is up 2.2% at an annual rate. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.2% increase in June.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714a.jpg" width="353">
Core goods prices fell for the second month in the last three. The 0.2% decline was led by a 1.3% (-2.8% y/y) drop in furniture &amp; bedding prices and no change (+1.5% y/y) in appliance prices. Apparel prices also fell by 0.7% (-1.5% y/y) and are down 1.0% (AR) so far this year. New motor vehicle prices were unchanged (0.7% y/y) but prices for used cars &amp; trucks rose 0.8% (7.1% y/y).
Core services prices rose a modest 0.2%. Shelter prices rose 0.2% (2.4% y/y) after two months of no change and medical care services prices rose 0.2% (4.8% y/y), the least for any month since April 2003. Public transportation prices were strong for the fourth consecutive month, up 1.2% (4.7% y/y) and school tuition costs rose 0.4% (6.6% y/y).
The chained CPI which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases fell 0.1% and less food &amp; energy chain prices fell for the second consecutive month.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer Price Index</a> </th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>-5.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80113/@E80113.HTM">Chained CPI: Total (NSA)</a> </td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Retail Sales Surged 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 14, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714d.jpg" width="353">
US retail sales surged 1.7% last month following a decline in May that was revised slightly shallower to -0.3%. Consensus expectations had been for a 1.0% increase. Sales excluding motor vehicles rose 0.7% and followed an upwardly revised no change in May. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.5% increase.
Sales at gasoline service stations rose 1.9% despite lower gas prices. Nonauto retail sales less gasoline rose 0.6% (7.3% y/y) following a 0.1% up tick in May.
During the last ten years there has been a 54% correlation between the level of Consumer Sentiment and the y/y change in nonauto retail sales less gasoline.
Spending on discretionary items was firm. Sales at furniture &amp; electronics stores rose 0.6% (4.6% y/y) and general merchandise store sales jumped 1.2% (8.1% y/y). Apparel store sales recovered the prior month&#39;s decline and jumped 1.0% (7.6% y/y).
Building material store sales rose a modest 0.2% (9.3% y/y) following three months of firm gain.
Sales of nonstore retailers (internet and catalogue) more than reversed the prior month&#39;s drop and surged 1.7% (11.9% y/y).

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/usecon/@ED/@ED04/@ED0401/@ED0401.HTM">Retail Sales &amp; Food Services</a></td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>9.6%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Up Again 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 14, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714c.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance jumped 16,000 to 336,000 last week after a revised 9,000 increase the week earlier. Consensus expectations had been for 320,000 claims.
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 75% correlation between the level of initial claims for unemployment insurance and the monthly change in payroll employment. There has been a (negative) 65% correlation with the level of continuing claims.
The four week moving average of initial claims was about stable at 320,750 (-5.7% y/y).
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance jumped 45,000 following a revised 25,000 decline during the prior week.
The insured unemployment rate ticked up to 2.1%.
The Cost of Business Cycles for Unskilled Workers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr214.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">07/09/05</th>
<th scope="col">07/02/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>336</td>
<td>320</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>402</td>
<td>404</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,617</td>
<td>-10.7%</td>
<td>2,926</td>
<td>3,531</td>
<td>3,570</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Several Nations' CPI's Remain Moderate Despite Rapidly Rising Energy Costs 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> July 14, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714e.jpg" width="353">
Several countries reported June CPI today, and the results generally suggest that overall inflation remains quiescent. Prices in both Germany and Italy were flat after a 0.3% rise in May, and year-on-year rates four of the six reporting countries, which also include Spain, Finland, New Zealand and the US, remain at or below their pace during 2004.
Inflation is always of interest, but all the more presently because of the surge in energy prices. So we keep checking to see if there has been an acceleration in overall inflation or, if available, in the overall rate excluding energy. This latter is important for showing whether higher energy costs are being pushed through to the prices of other goods and services. In the three countries for which a total excluding energy is published, Germany, Spain and the US, this year/year rate was lower in June than it had been six months ago.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714f.jpg" width="353">
In this same time-period comparison, the 12-month percent change in June versus that for December 2004, we can discern differing trends in non-energy sectors that might help us understand how this moderate inflation is being sustained. Clothing prices are weak in almost every country, and in the places where they are not slowing, they are moving evenly with 2004&#39;s pace. Communications prices continue to decline outright, though less rapidly in some countries. Health care costs -- at least the portion covered here, the part consumers actually pay -- are generally rising at about the same rate. Food and household goods prices are mixed among the various reporting countries. Thus, apart from the clothing sector, where weakness is widespread, there is no systematic pattern of price change among the categories and the countries. This randomness is probably beneficial to the prevention of a general acceleration of prices, since it indicates considerable resistance to higher prices in disparate places in the world.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">% Changes; Yr/Yr calculated from NSA</th>
<th scope="col">June 2005</th>
<th scope="col">May 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Year/ Year</th>
December/December
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany (SA)</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy (SA)</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Spain (NSA)</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>4.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy (NSA)</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>4.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy (NSA)</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finland (NSA)</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>1.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New Zealand (NSA)</td>
<td>0.9*</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>2.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Memo: US (SA)</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy (SA)</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Cost of transporting crude oil has soared to series high

Market-based inflation expectations have not yet reflected recent surge in oil prices

Global equity markets are fearing a major economic disruption from soaring oil prices

Is recent drop in sentiment signaling softer growth ahead?

With the Iran conflict, geopolitical risk has soared to alarming levels

Soaring AI-related investment in US underpinning strong contribution of business spending to overall growth

AI-related outperformance of IP in Advanced Asia ex Japan

Resilient US economy pushing up Blue Chip 2026 outlook

US and China big leaders in adoption of AI models

Robust US demand for advanced technology products

China's export growth rotating away from the US

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

Global freight costs are on the rise while supply chain pressures are contained

Accelerating positive economic surprises in the G10 are boosting the global economy

Considerably more monetary ease expected from US and UK as Japan tightens

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

US productivity growth has been significantly faster than in other major economies

Consumers' short-term US inflation expectations still elevated while longer-term expectations of financial markets are steady

Our global data offering is unparalleled in terms of coverage, quality, and organization. We offer 290+ databases from 2500 government and private sources, a wealth of key survey and forecast data covering the world’s economies, and a robust offering of archive databases that drive machine learning for big data applications.

Optimized for precision analytics, our data is seamlessly integrated with Microsoft Office and all leading statistical packages through our DLX® software and platform independent HaverView™ website. We further offer direct database feeds, client server or cloud-based delivery, and RESTful API.


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

Service Health

A premier time series data platform for the global strategy, research, and quant communities. 

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Winnie Tapasanun

260406N15.jpg

260406O15.jpg

The U.S. ISM Services PMI decreased to 54.0 in March following a 2.3-point rise to 56.1 in February (the highest reading since July 2022), according to today’s report by the Institute for Supply Management, indicating expansion in the services sector for the 21st consecutive month but at a slower pace. The March index, while above 50.8 in March 2025 and a low of 49.4 in June 2024, remained below a high of 55.5 in October 2024 and a record-high 67.5 in November 2021. The 12-month average was 52.3, pointing to continued growth in the U.S. services sector. The Action Economics Forecast Survey had expected 54.9 for March.

Haver Analytics constructs a composite index combining the services index and the manufacturing reading. This index fell to 53.8 in March after a 2.0-point increase to 55.7 in February, signaling expansion for the 10th straight month, albeit at a slower rate. The latest reading was above 50.6 in March 2025 and a low of 49.3 in June 2024, while remaining below a record-high 66.7 in November 2021. These series date back to July 1997.

In the latest services survey, the business activity index declined to 53.9 in March after rising to 59.9 in February, indicating continued expansion in business activity for 21 consecutive months, though at the slowest pace since September. The index was above a low of 50.0 in June 2024 but below a record-high 70.9 in November 2021. In March, 22.8% of respondents (NSA) reported higher activity while 14.6% reported an activity decline. The new orders index rose to 60.6 in March after increasing to 58.6 in February, reflecting expansion in new orders for the 10th straight month and the highest level since February 2023. The index was above its recent low of 47.2 in May 2025 but below a high of 61.0 in February 2023 and a record-high 69.2 in October 2021. In March, 32.0% of respondents (NSA) reported higher new orders while a lessened 12.6% reported declines. Meanwhile, the supplier deliveries index (NSA) increased to 56.2 in March from 53.9 in February, indicating slower supplier delivery performance for the 16th straight month after one month in faster territory in November 2024.

On the labor front, the employment index fell to 45.2 in March after rising to 51.8 in February, showing employment activity in the services sector contracted for the first time since November and at the lowest level since December 2023. The latest reading was above a low of 43.5 in December 2023 but below a high of 54.1 in June 2023 and a high of 58.9 in April 2021. A reduced 10.7% of respondents (NSA) indicated higher employment in March while an increased 18.4% reported declines.

On the inflation front, the prices index jumped to 70.7 in March from 63.0 in February, indicating prices paid by services organizations for materials and services had risen (i.e., above 50) since June 2017 and at the fastest pace since October 2022. The index was above a low of 53.9 in March 2024 and a low of 55.1 in June 2023 but significantly below a peak of 83.7 in March 2022. An increased 45.7% of respondents (NSA) reported higher prices in March while only 1.2% reported price declines.

Additionally, the new export orders index dropped to 50.7 in March from 57.2 in February, showing new export orders expanded for the third time in four months but at a slower rate. The imports index rose to 55.2 in March from 51.8 in February, registering the third expansion in four months and the highest level since January 2024. The inventories index declined to 54.8 in March from 56.4 in February, indicating inventories expanded for the fourth time in five months but at a slower pace. The inventory sentiment index slipped to 54.3 in March from 55.3 in February, showing continued expansion since May 2023. The backlog of orders index fell to 53.6 in March from 55.9 in February, marking the second successive month of expansion following 11 straight months of contraction. These series are not seasonally adjusted and not included in the ISM Services PMI total.

The ISM Services PMI is a composite index consisting of four equally weighted diffusion indexes: Business Activity, New Orders, Employment, and Supplier Deliveries. A reading above 50 indicates expansion in the services sector; below 50 suggests contraction. Supplier Deliveries is the only ISM index that is inversed; a reading above 50 indicates slower deliveries. The ISM figures are available in Haver's **USECON** database, with additional detail in the **SURVEYS** database. The expectations figure from Action Economics is in the **AS1REPNA** database.

260406P15.jpg

260406Q15.jpg

- ISM Services PMI at 54.0 in Mar., down 2.1 pts. from Feb.; below forecasts but above the 12-month avg. of 52.3.
- Business Activity (53.9, 21st straight month of expansion); New Orders (60.6, 10th consecutive month of expansion and fastest since Feb. ’23); Employment (45.2, first contraction since Nov.); Supplier Deliveries (56.2 vs. 53.9).
- Prices Index (70.7) indicates prices rising since June ’17, the fastest pace since Oct. ’22.

U.S. ISM Services PMI Slips in March, Still Indicating Expansion for the 21st Straight Month

Tian Yong Woon

In this week’s Letter, we examine the first-round price impacts of the surge in oil prices stemming from the ongoing Middle East conflict in Asia. Despite recent rhetoric and reports suggesting a potentially swift resolution, the conflict continues to unfold, with a ceasefire hanging in the balance, and with some measures of shipping volumes through the Strait of Hormuz still reduced to a trickle. At the same time, crude oil prices have been whipsawing amid shifting market perceptions about the persistence of the current supply shock (chart 1). The initial effects of higher oil prices are already showing up in hard data, particularly in energy- and fuel-related inflation across Indonesia, South Korea, and Vietnam (chart 2). In response, several governments have rolled out sizeable subsidy programmes to cushion rising energy costs, though these measures come with significant fiscal strain.

We also assess recent consumer inflation expectations in South Korea and Taiwan, which show early signs of edging higher (chart 3), although there is as yet no clear evidence of a meaningful unanchoring. To add further nuance, our latest Blue Chip survey suggests that most panellists expect only a limited and temporary pass-through from higher energy prices to core inflation, though a non-trivial minority anticipate a more persistent effect (chart 4). On the policy front, respondents broadly expect central banks to delay easing while avoiding outright tightening, with outcomes likely to diverge across regions (chart 5). In the near term, upcoming policy decisions in India, New Zealand, and South Korea—alongside other key data releases—will provide a useful test of these expectations (chart 6).

**The Middle East conflict**
The Middle East conflict continues to rage, with IMF-tracked shipping volumes through the Strait of Hormuz still reduced to a trickle. Meanwhile, crude oil prices remain volatile, gyrating alongside shifting perceptions over how soon normal oil flows might resume. In reality, there is still little sign of a substantive resolution, and no agreement to fully reopen the strait appears imminent, suggesting that oil flows are likely to remain constrained at low levels in the near term. That said, some investors are closely monitoring developments following reports of discussions around a potential 45-day ceasefire, which could pave the way toward a more lasting resolution. Until then, and absent any meaningful supply relief, crude oil prices—and by extension, energy-related inflation—are likely to face continued upward pressure, particularly for oil-dependent, importing economies.

260406T1.jpg

**Initial price impacts**
The initial inflation concerns among policymakers and investors stemming from the surge in oil prices are now beginning to show up in the data, as illustrated in chart 2. The latest March readings—capturing the period after the onset of the Middle East conflict—already point to a sharp acceleration in energy-related prices on a year-ago basis. Indonesia’s energy CPI basket has risen by around 9%, while diesel prices in South Korea have jumped 17%. Vietnam’s retail gasoline prices have seen an even more pronounced increase, at roughly 25.6%. Given the scale of these price surges, and their direct impact on everyday essentials—particularly fuel for daily commutes and broader economic activity—governments across Asia have begun rolling out sizeable subsidy programmes. These measures, often implemented at significant fiscal cost, aim to cushion the burden on households and firms. For instance, South Korea’s finance ministry proposed a supplementary budget of around $17.3 billion in late March to support low-income households, youth, and businesses amid higher oil prices, with approval expected by April 10. Meanwhile, Indonesia has allocated approximately $22.4 billion toward energy subsidies and support for selected energy and utilities firms to help keep prices affordable.

260406T2.jpg

**Consumer inflation expectations**
What policymakers are likely to focus on—beyond the immediate price impacts—is how the recent surge in oil prices feeds into inflation expectations. If left unanchored, these expectations could pose a far greater challenge than the supply-driven price shock itself, including reduced monetary policy effectiveness in reining in inflation and the risk of a self-fulfilling inflation cycle—though it is worth noting that such dynamics are not yet close to materialising. So far, there are some early, albeit inconclusive, signs that near-term consumer inflation expectations are beginning to drift higher in certain economies. As shown in chart 3, one-year-ahead inflation expectations edged up to 2.7% in March, while in Taiwan, consumer sentiment regarding domestic price trends over the next six months has turned notably more pessimistic relative to overall confidence.

260406T3.jpg

**The latest Blue Chip survey**
Turning to investor perspectives on how higher energy prices may feed into inflation, our special questions in the latest Blue Chip Financial Forecasts (BCFF) survey offer some useful nuance. As shown in chart 4, around two-thirds of panellists expect only a limited and temporary pass-through from higher oil prices to core inflation. That said, a non-trivial minority (31%) anticipate a more moderate and persistent pass-through. This is notable given the focus on core inflation, and underscores how energy prices can generate second-round effects even in typically non-energy components, reflecting the pervasive role of energy in everyday economic activity—from manufacturing to the upkeep of a wide range of goods and services.

260406T4.jpg

Delving deeper, we also asked panellists about their views on the prospective path of central bank policy should energy-driven inflation prove persistent. As shown in chart 5, responses broadly coalesce around two themes: central banks are likely to delay easing rather than tighten, and policy responses will vary meaningfully across regions. The former is already playing out to some extent in recent central bank decisions across Asia, with several explicitly citing the ongoing Middle East conflict as a reason to remain vigilant on inflation and refrain from easing policy prematurely. As for the latter, there are already signs of divergence in how different central banks are approaching the situation.

260406T5.jpg

**The week ahead**
Looking to the week ahead, there will be ample opportunities to assess whether investor expectations for central bank policy moves play out across Asia, with several rate decisions due—most notably in India, New Zealand, and South Korea. Also on the docket are China’s March CPI print and a range of Japan-related releases. Policymakers are likely to remain focused on balancing inflation control with supporting growth and maintaining currency stability. For now, and absent offsetting domestic factors, expectations for further near-term easing have been tempered by rising inflation risks. In China, recent CPI readings point to a modest pickup, while producer price deflation has begun to ease after a prolonged period of weak or negative inflation.

260406T6.jpg

Asia

Economic Letter from Asia: First-Round Effects

Michael J. Moran

260403A.jpg

260403B.jpg

The report on payroll employment for March was impressive when viewed in isolation. Job growth was strong at 178,000, and the advance was broadly based. The construction and manufacturing sectors both posted solid gains, and the service-producing sector registered its firmest performance in more than a year. However, the gain might be viewed as a continuation of an unusual bout of random volatility. The March advance followed a notable drop in February (-133,000, revised down from -92,000), which followed an upside surprise in January (160,000, revised up from 126,000).

To be sure, statistical noise has been a factor in the past three months, but the results also represent an encouraging shift in job growth from that in the second half of last year, when employment rose only marginally in the third quarter and fell in the fourth. The net change in the past three months seems to signal that job growth is not drying up. The net advance so far this year is far from brisk, but it is clearly in the plus column and noticeably better than results in late 2025.

The unemployment rate also might be viewed as favorable, as it dipped 0.1 percentage point to 4.3%, although it was a “soft” decline. That is, employment as measured by the household survey declined 64,000, but the size of the labor force fell by a larger amount (off 396,000). Still, the jobless rate has climbed only modestly higher since the labor market started to ease in 2023, and it has inched lower in the past few months.

Unemployment has been contained despite modest hiring because layoffs also have been light. Initial claims for unemployment benefits have moved sideways in the past few years, indicating no change in the pace of layoffs. This pattern is confirmed by terminations data in the report on job openings and labor turnover (JOLTs) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A supply-side shift in the labor market also has helped to contain the unemployment rate. Growth in the size of the labor force has slowed, and with fewer individuals seeking employment, those searching are more easily absorbed. Measures of the size of the labor force can be difficult to assess because there are breaks in the series every year. The Bureau of Labor Statistics adjusts the population controls used in its estimating procedure every January without revising past data to align with the new estimates. Thus, every January involves a discontinuity in the series, which will distort year-over-year changes.

However, Haver Analytics maintains a smoothed series originally developed by BLS to eliminate the breaks in the labor force data. As shown in the chart below, the smoothed series on the size of the labor force had been growing at a pace centered on 1.2% through 2022, but it has slowed irregularly since then (an observation for October is not available because of limited data collection during the government shutdown). The overall labor force is still growing, but the slower pace means fewer individuals looking for work, which most likely results in fewer being counted as unemployed.

The BLS collects data every month on both native-born and foreign-born individuals in the labor force. The breaks in these series are an issue, and Haver does not maintain smoothed series. However, the use of moving averages achieves enough smoothing to provide a sense of underlying changes. The native-born labor force has moved erratically in the past couple of years, but it has continued to advance. The foreign-born labor force, in contrast, seems to have peaked in mid-2025 and has generally declined since then.

The employment and earnings data are collected from surveys taken each month during the week containing the 12th day of the month. The labor market data are contained in Haver's **USECON** database. Detailed figures are in the **EMPL** and **LABOR** databases. The expectations figures are in the **AS1REPNA** database.

260403C.jpg

260403D.jpg

- The jump of 178,000 in payroll employment in March easily exceeded the expected gain of 51,000.
- Following a net gain in January and February, the employment setting seems to have brightened slightly.
- A dip in the unemployment rate continued the recent pattern of marginal changes.

Payroll Employment: Another Surprise in March, The Third Consecutive

Robert Brusca

260403E.jpg

French manufacturing industrial production was flat in February after a January rebound; output rose by 0.2% following a 0.8% decline in December.

The components of industrial production in February showed 2.6% increase in consumer durables, a 0.4% increase in consumer nondurables, flat output from capital goods, and a 0.7% month to month decline in intermediate output.

Sequentially, French output had been growing at a slow, steady pace of 0.8% at an annual rate over both 12 months and six months, but then slipped to a 6.1% contraction at an annual rate over three months. Consumer durable goods output on this span shows consistent increases, but there are no trends to clear acceleration or deceleration. Consumer nondurables trace an accelerating path of moderate means from -1.8% over 12 months, to -0.4% over six months, and then rising at a 5.5% annual rate over three months. Capital goods output is moving in the opposite direction, growing by 3.4% over 12 months, slowing to a 0.7% annual pace over six months, and then contracting at a 9.5% annual rate over three months. Intermediate goods output is falling at 0.8% pace over 12 months, but then it switches to an expansion rate of 0.8% over six months and 0.6% and over three months. There's nothing remarkable about these patterns, except there's some acceleration, some deceleration, and a lot of mulling about at low growth rates.

As a separate item, French auto production is slipping and decelerating, falling by 7.1% at an annual rate over 12 months, falling at a 7.9% pace over six months, and then plunging at a 19.3% annual rate over three months. On these same horizons, motor vehicle registrations fall by 14.7% over 12 months; the weakness pares back to an 11.2% annual rate decline over six months, and then it steps up to a 22.1% decline at an annual rate over three months. French demand for autos is not in good shape.

In the quarter to date—now two months into the first quarter—manufacturing industrial production is falling at a 0.8% annual rate. That pace is boosted by 9.4% annual rate gain in consumer durables output but restrained by just a 0.2% annual rate increase in consumer nondurable goods. Capital goods output is falling at a 1.9% annual rate, while intermediate goods output is falling at a 1% annual rate. Also in the quarter to date, automobile production is plunging at a 24.3% annual rate, while on the demand side, motor vehicle registrations are falling at a 15% annual rate.

French manufacturing data are somewhat confusing. The chart shows that the industrial production trend has been showing consistent increases over 12 months, but it has recently been pulling back relatively sharply. On the other hand, the manufacturing PMI for France has been consistently negative going back to mid-2022 and only in early 2026 has the manufacturing PMI been posting some values above the 50% mark, indicating that output was starting to actually expand. In March, the PMI reading for manufacturing has slipped back by the thinnest margin below the 50% mark.

260403.jpg

Of course, events in the Middle East make everything more speculative, with the war effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and no certainty about how or when that is going to be sorted out. In the meantime, the potential threat of ongoing oil price pressures has put both the ECB and the Bank of England in a position to be more wary with policy, and they warned markets about the potential for rate hikes as soon as their next meetings are engaged. That also raises questions about the outlook for growth. But we continue to track and chronicle trends in the data. It's also quite clear that we could have events that will play out that could completely undermine these trends before they get a chance to run to conclusion. It's an important time to be wary and watch all developments—a lot is in play.

France

French IP Waffles

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

260402A5.jpg

260402B5.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance declined by 9,000 to 202,000 in the week ending March 28, from 211,000 in the week ending March 21, revised from 210,000. The four-week average declined 3,000 to 207,750 in the week ending March 28, from 210,750 the March 21 week, revised from 210,500. The Forecast Survey looked for 212,000 claims to have been filed.

The total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries—also known as “continuing claims”—rose by 25,000 to 1.841 million in the week ending March 21, from 1.816 million in the week ending March 14. The four-week moving average declined to 1.839 million in the latest week from 1.846 million in the March 14 week. This is the lowest level for this average since September 28, 2024 when it was 1.834 million. The insured unemployment rate remained at 1.2% in the week of March 21. It has remained at that level since the week of November 29, 2025.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending March 14, the highest unemployment rates were in Rhode Island (2.83%), New Jersey (2.73%), Massachusetts (2.66%), Washington (2.39%), Minnesota (2.31%), California (2.17%), and New York (2.01%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.31%), Louisiana (0.32%), Arkansas (0.36%), Alabama (0.38%), and North Carolina (0.40%). Rates in other notable states include Illinois (1.99%), Connecticut (1.82%), Pennsylvania (1.72%), and Texas (1.07%). These state data are not seasonally adjusted.

Data on weekly unemployment claims are from the Department of Labor itself, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They begin in 1967 and are contained in Haver’s **WEEKLY** database and summarized monthly in **USECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986.

260402C5.jpg

260402D5.jpg

- New claims declined by 9,000 to 202,000.
- Continuing claims rose by 25,000 to 1.841 million.
- The insured unemployment rate remained at 1.2%.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Up A Bit Further

Producer Prices Unexpectedly Weak

Producer Prices Unexpectedly Weak

Several Nations' CPI's Remain Moderate Despite Rapidly Rising Energy Costs

Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Up Again

U.S. Retail Sales Surged

Consumer Prices Rose Less Than Expected

Consumer Prices Rose Less Than Expected